(SALEM, OR) — A formal complaint filed Friday with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is raising new concerns about lobbying tactics used by one of the state’s most powerful labor organizations. A coalition of Republican state legislators has accused the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 of submitting misleading and potentially fabricated testimony to influence the passage of House Bill 3838, a controversial proposal that would establish new workforce standards in Oregon’s home care industry.
The complaint, filed by Representatives Ed Diehl of Stayton, Lucetta Elmer of McMinnville, Republican Minority Leader Christine Drazan of Canby, and others, alleges that SEIU 503 orchestrated a campaign that flooded legislative offices with roughly 1,000 identical pre-printed postcards. Each of these cards was presented as a unique message of support from constituents across Oregon. However, the lawmakers claim that at least two individuals whose names were printed on the cards later denied ever authorizing or submitting any testimony in support of the bill.
If substantiated, the use of false or misleading constituent communications could represent a violation of Oregon ethics and lobbying laws. State law prohibits individuals or organizations from knowingly submitting false information in the course of lobbying public officials or attempting to influence legislation. The lawmakers argue that the postcards were part of a coordinated effort to manufacture the appearance of widespread public support, thereby misleading members of the Oregon Legislature as they deliberated on the bill.
House Bill 3838 itself has been the focus of intense debate throughout the 2025 legislative session. The bill would create a statewide Home and Community-Based Services Workforce Standards Board tasked with establishing minimum pay, training, and staffing requirements for workers providing care in settings such as adult foster homes, in-home care programs, and other long-term support services. Proponents of the bill, including SEIU 503, argue that the care industry is in crisis due to high turnover, inconsistent training, and inadequate wages. They claim the board would help stabilize a critical workforce and improve care for vulnerable Oregonians.
Critics, however, have expressed concern that the bill would impose significant new costs on providers and potentially reduce service availability—especially for small, rural, or independent care operators who might not be able to meet the proposed wage and staffing mandates. There are also growing concerns among legislators and watchdog groups that the union’s strong support for the bill could amount to a conflict of interest if lobbying efforts cross legal or ethical lines.
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is expected to begin a confidential preliminary review of the complaint to determine whether there is sufficient cause to proceed with a full investigation. The commission typically has up to 30 days to decide whether to advance the case. If it moves forward, investigators may subpoena documents, interview witnesses, and recommend civil penalties for any proven violations. While the initial review is private, all records and findings become public if the case proceeds past the preliminary phase.
As the complaint winds its way through the ethics review process, the bill itself continues to advance. HB 3838 passed the Oregon House on June 16 and is currently awaiting action in the Senate. Legislative leaders have not indicated whether the ethics allegations will affect the bill’s timeline or prospects for passage. However, the controversy may complicate public perception of the measure and the role of unions in shaping Oregon labor policy.
For now, the focus shifts to the Ethics Commission, where the lawmakers’ allegations will be examined in greater detail. If the commission finds that SEIU 503 knowingly submitted false testimony, it could result in serious penalties and raise broader questions about transparency and accountability in the legislative process. Regardless of the outcome, the complaint underscores the growing scrutiny facing both advocacy organizations and elected officials in Salem.